This week in mid-September Sydney saw yet another small but significant victory for the sisterhood. Ms Quian Liu, 35, was found not guilty of the murder of her husband Han Lim Chin, 39, as well as his manslaughter, by a jury evidently composed of morons who believed her barrister's claim that the entire event had been "a terrible, tragic accident". The distraught woman had simply "reacted to a nasty situation". The nasty situation had culminated in the victim acting aggressively after repeated accusations of his wife's infidelity with a personal trainer at her gym.
Compounding her fear and anxiety, it was alleged, was her knowledge that Han Lim Chin carried knives in a bum bag he was wearing, while she herself held a knife behind her back. Claiming she wasn't aware that a protective sheath had fallen from the knife she was holding, she simply meant to press the knife up against his chest to prevent him from advancing closer. It seems that the unfortunate Chin had never himself visited a gym because his flesh was so soft the knife that was simply “pressed against” it penetrated as though it was melted butter all the way into his heart. Lifting the unfortunate event into the realms of Shakespearean tragedy were Chin's last words: "Wife do believe me, I do love you very much."
No evidence of remorse on the wife's part has been reported. On the contrary, according to evidence given by an attending police officer, Ms Liu had said simply "I stabbed him, we argued and I was mad." She later denied having said this.
When the verdict was delivered, Justice Clifton Hoeben revealed that in his thirteen years of presiding over trials this was the first time a jury had delivered a not guilty verdict. On hearing this out of context, one might conclude that the judge was expressing a degree of dissatisfaction with this egregious travesty of justice but the report in the Sydney Morning Telegraph of September 15, 2017 assures us he was smiling as he spoke those words as though he also thought the verdict was a brilliant balancing of the scales of justice. Evidently it was smiles all around, that is, except for relatives of the deceased who later expressed to TV journalists in sad, difficult English their inability to accept that what had happened was "an accident".
Indeed, how could one be stabbed through the heart by accident? Perhaps if a person was holding a knife in a Psycho-like grip, tripped on a fold in a rug and fell toward the person with whom a nasty situation was being shared, and against odds at which most gamblers would despair, drove the knife into the other person's body where the small space housing the heart is located. However, nowhere at no time did Liu claim that anything like this happened. If it had been, perhaps it would be understandable that a jury reached the decision it did. In comparison, Liu's claim of what happened requires an inordinate amount of suspension of disbelief. It was just an accident, so there! "A word means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." The spirit of Humpty Dumpty was apparently informing her defence.
Just for argument's sake, let's accept for a moment the man's death was simply an accident. The man is still dead; his wife was the cause. Why was the charge of manslaughter ever introduced into every modern legal system? The reason was to calibrate blame and punishment in cases such as this (providing it was an accident) where no intent to kill has been found. The factor of, or absence of, negligence is usually the deciding factor. In cases of car accidents, for example, in which passengers, or the occupants of a car collided with are killed, the factor of proven or unproven negligence decides whether the driver at fault goes to jail, and jail is usually the fate if found guilty in such cases. People hereby found guilty sit in jail while Liu, who had a knife secreted behind her back during a domestic altercation and just happened to accidently stab her husband through the hearts skips out of court smiling like a split watermelon.
Whoever said the law is an ass knew what he was talking about. Let's call a spade a spade. It's Feminism that has brought us to this ugly pass. It's now open season on the despised male. After years of poisoning women's minds against men and converting domestic violence into a cause celebre it's gotten to the point where a judge can smile while allowing a female killer to go Scot free. He obviously wasn't up to navigating through a mine-filled sea. Liu, after all had a second string to her bow. Not only was she female, she was also a member of an ethnic minority - a deadly double whammy.
Domestic violence, admittedly serious as it is, has been promoted into a category of evil topping the charts almost as much as racism and is a one-way blame game. A knee jerk response is that it is always immediately thought of in line with the simple feminist decree: man bad, woman good. Instinctively, domestic violence is construed as men's violence against women. However, the reality is different. According to Jim Ogloff who heads research at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Violence and is a world renowned authority of violence has stated that at least one third of domestic violence is perpetrated by the not so fairer sex. That is of course what is actually reported. While no shortage exists of women who will report even the most negligible degree of domestic violence, often with ulterior motives, how many men would risk being laughed out of a police station by going to report his significant female other assaulting him?
Get used to it. It's a rigged game, a stacked deck. A woman has a breast squeezed and it's a fire-storm of outrage and demands that the perpetrator be punished to the very limit allowable by law. However when a man has his penis sliced off by his wife while he sleeps, it’s good for countless laughs by late-night comedians to the delight of female audiences.
The moral of the story? Be wary of the woman in your life. She may kill you just because she can - and get away with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment